Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems; Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Dummies), 3901-3920 [E8-856]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily
Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114,
wong.lily@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 13, 2007, EPA proposed to
disapprove the State Plan submitted by
Nevada on November 15, 2006. The
State Plan is intended to address the
requirements of EPA’s Clean Air
Mercury Rule, promulgated on May 18,
2005, and subsequently revised on June
9, 2006. EPA proposed to determine that
the submitted Nevada State Plan does
not meet certain Clean Air Mercury Rule
requirements.
The proposed action provided a 45day public comment period. In response
to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff,
Administrator of the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, submitted by
letter on January 3, 2008, EPA is
extending the comment period for an
additional 45 days.
Dated: January 9, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8–1117 Filed 1–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 2007–0048]
RIN 2127–AJ44, RIN 2127–AJ49
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, Child Restraint Systems;
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid
III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-Year-Old
Child Dummies)
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document supplements
NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
(NPRM) of August 31, 2005 that
proposed to: (a) Expand the
applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child
restraint systems, to restraints
recommended for children up to 80
pounds, and (b) require booster seats
and other restraints to meet performance
criteria when tested with a crash test
dummy representative of a 10-year-old
child. In Part 1 of this SNPRM, NHTSA
is proposing a test procedure for
positioning the 10-year-old child
dummy in a child restraint, to reduce
variation due to chin-to-lower neck
contact that was exhibited by the
dummy in sled tests conducted
subsequent to the NPRM. Comments are
also requested in Part 1 on some other
changes or clarifications to the NPRM,
proposed in response to the public
comments. In Part 2 of this SNPRM, we
likewise propose to add a seating
procedure for positioning the Hybrid III
6-year-old dummy in a child restraint
for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing.
Concerns about the variability in HIC
measurements obtained by that test
dummy have led NHTSA to postpone
mandatory use of the dummy in agency
compliance tests. The seating procedure
will address this variability issue and
facilitate the full use of the dummy as
a compliance instrument.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not
later than March 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
(identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3901
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, you may call Dr. Roger
Saul, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone:
202–366–1740) (Fax: 202–493–2990).
For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–
366–3820). You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005
NPRM
III. Agency Follow Up
IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on
This SNPRM Relating to the HIII–10C
Dummy
a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII–6Year-Old Dummy
c. Head Support Surface
d. Housekeeping Measures
Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy
I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the
HIII–6C Dummy
III. Testing
Submission of Comments
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
I. Background
On August 31, 2005, NHTSA issued
an NPRM proposing: (a) To expand the
applicability of FMVSS No. 213, Child
restraint systems, to restraints
recommended for children up to 80
pounds (lb); and (b) to require booster
seats and other restraints to meet
performance criteria when tested with a
Hybrid III crash test dummy
representative of a 10-year-old child (70
FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245).
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3902
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
The rulemaking proposal was part of an
on-going agency initiative to enhance
the safety of children in motor vehicle
crashes. It also furthered Section 4(b) of
Public Law 107–318, 116 Stat. 2772
(‘‘Anton’s Law’’), which required the
initiation of a rulemaking proceeding for
the adoption of an anthropomorphic test
device that simulates a 10-year-old
child.1
The agency completed its evaluation
of the suitability of the Hybrid III 10year-old dummy in September 2004.
Following the evaluation, NHTSA
initiated rulemaking to adopt
specifications and performance
requirements for the test dummy into 49
CFR part 572 (notice of proposed
rulemaking published July 13, 2005, 70
FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004–
2005–21247), in addition to publishing
the August 31, 2005 NPRM to
incorporate the dummy into FMVSS No.
213.
Booster seats provide a seating
platform which boosts the child to a
position that enables the vehicle lap and
shoulder belts to fit better. Without
booster seats, children who are too
small to be adequately restrained with
the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt
system are at higher risk of injury due
to the belts’ improper placement. The
agency recommends that children who
have outgrown their internal harnessed
child restraint systems, but who cannot
adequately fit a vehicle’s lap and
shoulder belt system, be properly
restrained using booster seats until they
are at least 4 feet 9 inches tall.
The August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed
the view expressed by many in the child
passenger safety community that efforts
to increase booster seat use should go
hand-in-hand with expanding the
applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to all
booster seats. In that way, this view
maintains, the seating system that we
recommend for older children will be
closely assessed in the standard’s
rigorous dynamic test for adequate
performance in a crash. FMVSS No. 213
currently applies to child restraint
systems that are designed to restrain,
1 Section 4 of Anton’s Law, signed on December
4, 2002, states:
Section 4. Development of Anthropomorphic Test
Device Simulating a 10-Year-Old Child.
(a) Development and Evaluation. Not later than
24 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall develop and evaluate an
anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10year-old child for use in testing child restraints
used in passenger motor vehicles.
(b) Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year
following the development and evaluation carried
out under subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate
a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of an
anthropomorphic test device as developed under
subsection (a).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
seat, or position children who weigh 30
kg (65 lb) or less.2 Booster seats
recommended for children weighing up
to 65 lb are now subject to FMVSS No.
213 testing, but they are currently
tested 3 with a 52-lb 6-year-old
instrumented child dummy for injury
performance response criteria, and with
a 62-lb weighted 6-year-old
uninstrumented child dummy for
structural integrity. The NPRM
proposed to upgrade the test parameters
by using the 78-lb (35 kg) instrumented
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to test
boosters recommended for children
weighing up to 80 lb.4 (The 10-year-old
dummy is referred to as the ‘‘HIII–10C
dummy.’’)
II. Summary of Responses to August 31,
2005 NPRM
The agency received 11 comments on
the August 31, 2005 NPRM. Comments
were received from Britax Child Safety,
Inc. (Britax), Dorel Juvenile Group
(Dorel), Evenflo Company, Inc.
(Evenflo), Graco Children’s Products,
Inc. (Graco), the Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia (CHOP), the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), the American Automobile
Association (AAA), the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates), and Public Citizen.
All commenters supported extending
the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to
child restraints recommended for
children up to 80 lb, and supported
having a 10-year-old dummy to test
higher-weight rated child restraints.
Dorel, however, expressed concerns
about the biofidelity of the HIII–10C
dummy, particularly with regard to a
metal ‘‘spine box’’ in the dummy’s
thorax region. Dorel stated that the
dummy exhibited ‘‘chin to chest
contacts resulting in higher HIC scores
in backed boosters as compared to
backless.’’ 5 Similarly, Graco stated that
2 FMVSS No. 213, S4, definition of ‘‘child
restraint system.’’
3 For an overview of the current and proposed
weight ranges, see Table 1 of the NPRM, 70 FR at
51723.
4 The NPRM also requested comments on whether
FMVSS No. 213’s 4.4 kg mass limit (S5.4.3.2) for
belt-positioning boosters should be eliminated, and
replaced by a chest deflection requirement (70 FR
at 51724). In addition, the NPRM document
announced NHTSA’s decision not to propose at this
time performance criteria for seat belt fit for booster
seats or other belt guidance devices (70 FR at
51726).
5 Dorel also had concerns about the durability of
the HIII–10C, the characteristics of the abdominal
inserts, and the availability of the dummy for
evaluation. Public Citizen suggested that the HIII–
10C dummy ‘‘must be upweighted to more closely
match the mean weight of children today.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
it conducted a limited series of sled
tests (22) using the HIII–10C dummy
and observed a spike in the head X and
Z accelerations beginning between 45
and 50 milliseconds, typically of a
duration of less than 10 milliseconds.
Graco stated that it did not have an
explanation for the phenomenon, i.e.,
‘‘[whether] the spike was caused by a
chin strike, the biofidelity of the
dummy’s neck or some other cause,’’
but suggested that additional testing
should be performed to ensure that the
HIII–10C dummy is appropriate for use
in FMVSS No. 213 testing. (See also
comments to the July 13, 2005 NPRM
proposing to adopt specifications for the
HIII–10C into 49 CFR part 572, Docket
2004–21247.)
III. Agency Follow-Up
In response to these comments,
NHTSA conducted additional sled tests
to assess booster seat performance using
the HIII–10C dummy. As a result of the
tests, the agency determined that
dummy set-up (posture) prior to the test
significantly affected the consistency of
HIC measurements of repeat tests with
the HIII–10C dummy. When the dummy
was somewhat reclined in the child
restraint at the outset of the test,
reduced head forward translation and
increased head rotation caused severe
dummy chin contact to a rigid portion
of the dummy, which resulted in
increased HIC readings. After analyzing
the test results, NHTSA developed a
seating procedure for positioning the
HIII–10C dummy for the FMVSS No.
213 compliance test to address the chinto-rigid body impacts. The agency has
issued this SNPRM to seek public
comment on incorporating this
procedure into the standard. This issue
is discussed in more detail in the next
section.
Commenters made other suggestions
about or asked for clarification of certain
aspects of the August 31, 2005 NPRM.
Two of these, discussed in the next
section, are topics on which we seek
comment in this SNPRM. These relate to
the proposed parameters that would
specify which test dummy would be
used by NHTSA to test child restraints
of recommended weight ranges (this
issue was raised by Britax), and to the
issue of head support requirements for
CRSs and how the agency would test
booster seats and other child restraints
if the HIII–10C’s head were above the
seat back of the standard seat assembly
used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance
test (this issue was raised by Evenflo).
Commenters also remarked on various
other aspects of the NPRM. Comments
were submitted on the proposed injury
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3903
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
criteria 6 (Advocates believed that the
agency should conduct research into
whether the criteria should be scaled;
IIHS and CHOP asked whether the
proposed head excursion limits are
adequate; and Graco supported the
NPRM’s approach of having the injury
assessment reference values (IARV) and
performance measurements be generally
the same regardless of child restraint
tested). Comments were also submitted
on the NPRM’s discussion of injury
criteria under development, with NTSB,
AAP, CHOP and IIHS supporting the
development of an abdominal criterion,
and the latter opposed to the abdominal
injury ratio discussed in the NPRM.
Regarding lead time, Graco noted the
spikes observed in the dummy’s HIC
measurements and suggested that three
years of lead time should be provided to
allow manufacturers time to gain
experience with the HIII–10C dummy,
and to make any necessary product
design changes. A number of comments
were received on the agency’s decision,
announced in the NPRM, not to propose
at this time performance criteria for seat
belt fit for booster seats.
The agency is evaluating the
comments to the NPRMs on the HIII–
10C, and will respond to all relevant
comments in rulemaking documents
following this SNPRM.
It is not necessary for commenters to
resubmit views on today’s SNPRM that
were expressed in previous comments
on the earlier NPRMs. The agency notes
that the regulatory text proposed in this
SNPRM includes text that was proposed
in the August 31, 2005 NPRM. In some
instances, comments were received on
aspects of the proposed regulatory text.
The agency is including text that was
proposed in the earlier notice simply to
illustrate the appearance of the affected
sections. The inclusion does not mean
that NHTSA has already decided to
adopt the regulatory text. The agency
will respond to all relevant comments in
a final rule or other document following
this SNPRM.
IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments
on This SNPRM Relating to the HIII–10C
Dummy
a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
Following publication of the NPRM,
in March/April 2006 NHTSA conducted
additional sled testing of booster seats at
the agency’s Vehicle Research and Test
Center (VRTC) using the HIII–10C
dummy. The findings of this testing
program indicated that there were HIC
measurement inconsistencies in
repeated tests with the same booster seat
model. To determine the reasons behind
this finding, VRTC conducted
additional sled tests in July 2006. The
following discussion summarizes the
findings of these testing programs. The
findings are discussed at length in a
NHTSA technical report, ‘‘Development
of HIII 6-Year-Old and 10-Year-Old
Seating Procedure for Booster Seat
Testing,’’ (hereinafter ‘‘VRTC report’’),
which has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
March/April 2006 Testing Program
VRTC conducted 58 sled test
exposures using 30 booster seats with
the HIII–10C dummy (see Table 1). All
booster seats were installed on the
FMVSS No. 213 seat test fixture in
accordance with the manufacturers’
instructions. High-back child restraints
with adjustable head restraints were
positioned such that they were at the
correct height relative to the dummy’s
head and also gave optimal shoulder
belt fit (i.e., the belt was not on the
dummy’s neck or too far outboard on
the shoulder). Child restraints with nonadjustable head restraints with shoulder
belt guides attached were tested
according to the manufacturers’
instructions as to belt placement, if
provided.
Table 1 summarizes the chest
acceleration, head and knee excursions,
and HIC36 measurements observed in
the March/April 2006 tests. The full
description of the testing set-up and
details of all injury parameters
measurements are provided in the VRTC
report.
TABLE 1.—EVALUATION OF HIII–10-YEAR-OLD DUMMY IN FMVSS NO. 213 SLED TESTS (MAR/APR 2006)
HIC
36 ms
Chest acc.
3 ms
Head
excursion
Knee
excursion
1000
IARV
60 g
813 mm
915 mm
Restraint:
Graco Treasured Cargo ...........................................................................................
Graco Treasured Cargo ...........................................................................................
Cosco High Rise .......................................................................................................
Cosco High Rise .......................................................................................................
Safety 1st Intera .......................................................................................................
Safety 1st Intera .......................................................................................................
Safety 1st Apex 65 ...................................................................................................
Evenflo Generations .................................................................................................
Britax Parkway ..........................................................................................................
Graco Treasured CarGo ...........................................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Compass 500 ...........................................................................................................
6 The NPRM proposed performance criteria for
the HIII–10-year-old dummy similar to the current
FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the agency was
not aware of any injuries unique to children in
booster seats that would necessitate separate and
differing injury criteria limits. Thus, we tentatively
concluded that the existing injury criteria would
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
likely ensure the continued effectiveness of child
restraints rated to the higher weight limit of 80 lb.
The specific injury criteria measurement
maximums for the HIII–10-year-old dummy were:
HIC36 = 1000; chest acceleration = 60 g’s (3
millisecond clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters
(mm) for untethered condition, 720 mm for tethered
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1094
903
1128
910
506
395
541
532
824
NA
1137
950
622
1216
764
649
667
751
792
1594
51
48
52
51
45
48
45
44
52
46
49
49
56
56
58
51
46
50
65
58
490
562
527
475
421
436
437
449
518
502
540
521
603
580
638
658
539
537
651
583
667
763
736
637
568
590
614
631
716
746
824
801
809
808
863
834
768
822
851
802
condition (if applicable); and knee excursion = 915
mm. In preparation for proposing these criteria
measurement maximums, the agency’s Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC) performed testing
on booster seats with the HIII–10C dummy; only
one child restraint in the test series failed the
existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3904
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—EVALUATION OF HIII–10-YEAR-OLD DUMMY IN FMVSS NO. 213 SLED TESTS (MAR/APR 2006)—Continued
HIC
36 ms
Chest acc.
3 ms
Head
excursion
Knee
excursion
1000
IARV
60 g
813 mm
915 mm
Graco Cherished CarGo ...........................................................................................
Evenflo Big Kid .........................................................................................................
Cosco Summit Deluxe ..............................................................................................
Cosco Commuter DX ...............................................................................................
Safety 1st Enspira ....................................................................................................
Cosco Alpha Omega ................................................................................................
Safety 1st Intera .......................................................................................................
Cosco High Rise (no back) ......................................................................................
Evenflo Chase Premiere ..........................................................................................
Graco Turbo Booster ................................................................................................
Recaro Young Style .................................................................................................
Safety 1st Vantage Point ..........................................................................................
Combi Dakota (no back) ..........................................................................................
Cosco Protek ............................................................................................................
Recaro Young Sport .................................................................................................
Combi Kobuk ............................................................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Cosco
Cosco
Cosco
Safety
Safety
Commuter ......................................................................................................
Summit ..........................................................................................................
Alpha Omega ................................................................................................
1st Enspira ....................................................................................................
1st Apex 65 ...................................................................................................
The results of the March/April 2006
tests indicated that there were
inconsistencies in several HIC36
measurements in repeated tests with the
HIII–10C dummy placed in the same
type/model child restraint system. For
example, the HIC36 measurements for
the belt positioning booster (BPB)
Evenflo Generations varied from 622
(Pass IARV) to 1216 (Fail IARV). The
HIC36 measurements for the Compass
500 varied from 792 (Pass IARV) to 1594
(Fail IARV) (see Figure 1). Generally,
there were no inconsistencies observed
in the other FMVSS No. 213 injury
criteria measurements of chest
acceleration, and head and knee
excursions.
After analyzing the test results, VRTC
determined that dummy posture and
belt placement affected the kinematic
response of the dummy, which in turn
affected HIC readings. A dummy that is
set up to have a more reclined torso
(high torso angle) is more likely to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
773
1126
836
731
481
753
826
1137
586
653
627
472
NA
1030
NA
733
839
997
450
903
852
848
911
725
414
424
511
855
931
808
989
573
737
632
638
620
NA
965
submarine under the vehicle belt. The
motion of the head is much different in
a submarining case than in a situation
where the dummy is well restrained.
When the dummy is restrained
effectively (shoulder belt centered on
the sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the
head moves forward in unison with the
upper torso as the belt tension increases.
Then, as the belt reaches its spooling
limit, the head rotates in a wide arc and
late in the event contacts a location
either on the ribcage or into a portion
of the bib 7 having a large clearance to
the spine box. Since the ribcage is
compliant, the bib-to-spine box
clearance is high, and the contact occurs
very late in the event, the resulting head
acceleration due to chin contact is low.
7 The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front
of the dummy that serves as an interface between
the ribs and the sternum plate. It extends over each
shoulder and covers the cavity between the top rib
and the lower neck region of the spine box. The
chest jacket covers the bib.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55
51
54
50
47
45
52
52
48
50
44
42
49
43
47
45
52
53
46
47
55
57
49
45
52
51
47
46
50
37
73
52
51
52
42
41
53
42
585
650
538
517
528
557
591
670
602
625
601
560
492
551
470
682
639
560
571
525
678
592
694
609
507
505
578
598
651
607
679
653
573
598
654
616
577
530
777
875
770
743
775
862
881
985
874
905
801
767
751
864
494
696
907
864
753
739
856
778
1024
909
711
695
740
794
884
802
895
808
826
832
839
758
937
822
Thus its contribution to the HIC
calculation is minimal.
In contrast, in a submarining case, the
head does not translate forward much at
all because the shoulder belt engages the
neck instead of restraining the upper
torso. Therefore the upper torso steadily
becomes more horizontal and reclined
because the overwhelming majority of
the dummy’s mass is below the
shoulder belt. The head is pulled
downward by the weight of the dummy
through the neck, and the forward
inertia of the head mass causes severe
rotation about the shoulder belt at the
bottom of the neck. As a result, the head
arc is much tighter and chin contact
occurs sooner in the event, before a
significant amount of kinetic energy is
dissipated through the belt. This motion
causes the chin to contact the lowclearance portion of the bib overlaying
the top part of the spine box housing the
lower neck load cell. The bib does not
provide much resistance to the head’s
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
increased rotational energy and the chin
essentially ‘‘bottoms out’’ on the spine
box, causing a large spike in head
acceleration and increased HIC.
In summary, VRTC found that a more
reclined posture of the HIII–10C dummy
leads to an increased likelihood for
submarining of the dummy. This
situation leads to much higher
rotational velocity in the dummy’s head,
putting it in non-representative contact
with a more rigid portion of the dummy
structure. It was thus determined that
through kinematics, dummy posture
significantly affects HIC.
July 2006 Testing Program
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
In this test program, an additional
matrix of 12 sled tests was conducted to
address the finding that the dummy
HIC36 response is sensitive to the seating
posture of the dummy in the booster
seat. The purpose of this testing
program was to determine if the HIC36
variability could be decreased by tighter
controls on both the dummy’s posture
and the placement of the belt to restrain
the dummy to the test seat assembly.
Four factors were evaluated in the
VRTC testing program:
• Seating position—Left Side vs.
Right Side
• Torso angle—Upright vs. Reclined
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
• Dummy manufacturer—FTSS vs.
Denton
• Booster model—Evenflo
Generations vs. Compass 500
The results of the testing indicate that
the dummy torso angle (representing
posture) had a much larger effect on
HIC36 than the other three variables.
Dummy posture was the only variable to
have a statistically significant effect on
HIC36 outcome (alpha significance level
= 0.007, n = 8) and the p-value was more
than an order of magnitude smaller than
the next largest effector (dummy
manufacturer had p = 0.065). Figure 1
shows the average HIC36 with error bars
giving the minimum/maximum values
for each variable comparison. These test
results indicate that the kinematics
associated with a more horizontal torso
(i.e., reclined initial posture) led to more
head rotation and more severe dummy
chin contact, which ultimately resulted
in higher HIC36 readings. Belt
placement, which is largely a function
of both booster seat design and dummy
posture, was also shown to influence
HIC in a similar manner to dummy
posture (torso angle). A more inboard
shoulder belt was found to have the
same effect as a more reclined posture,
and thus similarly, resulted in higher
HIC36 values. Controlling the posture
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3905
and belt placement of the dummy
decreased the HIC36 variability in the
booster seats tested by 78%. 8
Figure 2 shows the relationship of
HIC36 measurements vs. torso angle
(representing posture) for the two beltpositioning boosters (BPBs) (Evenflo
Generations and Compass 500) that
were tested using the pulse and seat
assembly of FMVSS No. 213. The plot
indicates that for these two BPBs, a 20°
torso angle is correlated to a HIC36 value
of 1000. Note that the dispersion in the
data at each torso angle in Figure 2 is
due to the combined effects of left side
versus right side, dummy manufacturer,
dynamic belt motion due to booster seat
design, and small variations in the
controlled torso angle.
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
8 When the torso angle for the HIII–10-year-old
dummy was set to the upright position of
approximately 16°, the average coefficient of
variation for HIC36 for repeat tests of the two booster
seats used in the July 2006 test series was 12.4%.
HIC36 variability was lessened to an acceptable level
below the pass/fail criterion of 1000, and the
average HIC readings for the two seats used in
repeat testing ranged from 874–921.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Proposed Dummy Positioning Procedure
A detailed description of the seating
procedure used by VRTC is provided in
the VRTC report and in the proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
regulatory text. The general approach is
as follows:
1. Set the dummy’s neck angle at 16
degrees.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Set the dummy’s lumbar angle at
standard posture.
3. Place the booster seat on the
FMVSS No. 213 bench seat.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
EP23JA08.006</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
3906
3907
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
4. Place the dummy in the booster
seat so that the midsagittal line of the
dummy is aligned with the centerline of
the booster.
5. Measure the X and Z locations of
the left and right shoulder pivots. Make
sure that the X and Z values for these
two points are within 10 mm of each
other to ensure that the dummy is not
twisted or tilted in the seat.
6. Locate the head CG, H-point, and
knee pivot point. Calculate the H-point
location of the dummy relative to the
FMVSS No. 213 seat Z point by first
measuring the X and Z coordinates of
the knee pivot and head center of
gravity. Then mathematically locate the
intersection point of two circles using
the knee pivot and head center of
gravity as the centers and the known
dummy anthropometric lengths as radii
(see VRTC report for more detailed
explanation).
7. Set the torso angle (established
with the head CG and H-point) to 14
degrees ± 0.5 degrees from vertical.
8. Apply the belt restraints following
the booster manufacturer’s routing
instructions and using standard FMVSS
No. 213 belt tensions.
We note that the University of
Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) has also developed a
seating procedure for use with the HIII–
10C dummy that is similar to the
procedure proposed in this SNPRM.9
UMTRI had similar findings to the ones
of VRTC concerning HIC measurements
of the dummy. In a June 14, 2006
presentation to the agency on its
preliminary findings of an on-going
biomechanics study, UMTRI stated that
both the dummy’s initial position and
belt placement affected HIC
measurements during sled testing of
booster seats with the HIII–10C dummy.
The test data are publicly available on
the NHTSA biomechanics database. The
data and videos can also be accessed
from the NHTSA Web site https://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/
querytesttable.aspx. VRTC used the
average child posture data from the
UMTRI Stapp paper in combination
with the HIII–10C dummy’s
anthropometry to derive a mean torso
angle of 14.5° as the optimal angle to
reduce HIC36 variability for the HIII–10C
dummy while maintaining a biofidelic
posture. This angle is consistent with
the upright torso angle of approximately
16° used by the agency in the series of
sled tests conducted by VRTC in July
2006.
A series of tests using the HIII–10C
dummy was conducted in March/April
of 2007 to validate the seating
procedure. This series was a subset of
the BPBs that were tested in the March/
April 2006 series (see Table 1). Table 2
contains the test matrix and Table 3
summarizes the test results. All of the
tests were conducted at the proposed
torso angle of 14° ± 0.5°. This ± 0.5°
tolerance limit was achievable with the
various BPB models evaluated. The
Graco Turbo Booster was tested both
with and without the highback to
determine the effect of the highback.
The results indicated that controlling
the torso angle reduced dummy
response variability for the BPBs that
were tested. The IARVs were not
exceeded in any of the tests.
TABLE 2.—TEST MATRIX FOR VALIDATION OF PROPOSED SEATING PROCEDURE USING HIII–10C DUMMY
(MAR/APR 2007)
Dummy
SN
BPB model
Britax Parkway ..........
Safety 1st Apex 65 ...
Recaro Young Style
Cosoc Protek ............
Graco Turbo Booster:
Without back .........
With back ..............
Number
of tests
D001
F001
D001
F001
3
3
3
3
D001
F001
3
3
TABLE 3.—RESULTS FOR VALIDATION OF PROPOSED SEATING PROCEDURE USING HIII–10C DUMMY IN FMVSS NO. 213
SLED TESTS (MAR/APR 2007)
HIC
36 ms
Restraint:
Safety 1st Apex 65 ...................................................................................
Britax Parkway ..........................................................................................
Graco Turbo Booster:
With highback ...........................................................................................
Graco Turbo Booster:
No back ....................................................................................................
Recaro Young Style .................................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Cosco Protek ............................................................................................
Chest acc.
3 ms
Head
excursion
Knee
excursion
1000
IARV
60 g
813 mm
915 mm
830
683
893
473
507
420
51.1
55.7
53.3
48.4
49.0
47.0
614
610
637
574
617
614
790
815
810
704
717
732
433
356
42.0
43.3
611
602
707
709
622
625
703
680
838
763
496
403
47.3
49.3
52.1
50.1
46.4
52.2
42.9
43.8
569
540
579
697
617
706
622
574
684
698
692
770
754
773
694
603
Comments are requested on the
proposed dummy positioning
procedure. It is noted that the proposed
dummy positioning procedure may not
necessarily lower HIC values across the
board for the HIII–10C dummy (i.e., for
some restraints, positioning the dummy
in an upright posture may not
9 Reed MP, et al. ‘‘Improved Positioning
Procedures for 6YO and 10YO ATDs Based on
Child Occupant Postures,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal,
Vol. 50 (November 2006), pp. 337–388.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
necessarily prevent submarining and
high head accelerations when the seat is
tested dynamically). However, when
testing the HIII–10C dummy in a more
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3908
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
upright posture, the HIC values the
dummy produces should be within an
acceptable range of variability in
repeated testing.
The proposed positioning procedure
would apply when the HIII–10C is used
to test booster seats and not when the
dummy is used to test child restraints
other than booster seats (‘‘non-booster
seats’’) that are recommended for
children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb).10
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the
procedure is not needed in tests of the
HIII–10C in non-booster seats because
those restraints have an internal harness
to help position the dummy. For those
restraints, there is already a
methodology set forth in FMVSS No.
213 and in the agency’s Laboratory Test
Procedures for the standard 11 for
positioning test dummies in the
restraint systems. The methodology
specifies applying a certain load to the
dummy’s pelvic/lower torso area to
ensure the dummy is as far back in the
restraint as possible, and tightening the
internal harness to specifications. Those
procedures reasonably assure that the
dummy is properly positioned in the
child restraint, and appear suitable for
positioning the HIII–10C. In contrast,
booster seats do not have an internal
harness to help position the dummy, so
there is more opportunity for variation
in the positioning of the HIII–10C and
a greater need to control the torso angle
and the positioning of the lap/shoulder
belt. Comments are requested on this
issue.
Comments are also requested on
whether FMVSS No. 213 should require
boosters or other child restraint systems
(CRSs) to be designed such that the
dummy can be positioned in the CRS in
accordance with positioning
procedures. Conversely, if the dummy
cannot be so positioned, what flexibility
should be established to fluctuate from
the procedures to fit the dummy in the
CRS? The agency is also considering
whether FMVSS No. 213 should
expressly require that each child
restraint system must be capable of
fitting the test dummy that is specified
in S7 of FMVSS No. 213 to evaluate the
restraint. (For example, if the CRS were
recommended for use by children
weighing more than 30 kg (65 lb),
should the standard specify that the
CRS must be capable of fitting and being
tested with the HIII–10C dummy?)
10 There are only a few non-booster seats
recommended for children weighing over 30 kg (65
lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and Sunshine Kids Radian
80).
11 https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/
NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/
Associated%20Files/TP213-9a.pdf
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII–
6-Year-Old Dummy
FMVSS No. 213 requires that booster
seats recommended for use by children
weighing between 22.7 kg (50 lb) and 30
kg (65 lb) be tested with the HIII 6-yearold (HIII–6C) (52 lb) instrumented
dummy for injury assessment
performance requirements, and with the
weighted HIII 62 lb 6-year-old
uninstrumented dummy for assessment
of the restraint’s structural integrity.
Because a number of booster seats are
currently recommended by their
manufacturers for children weighing up
to 80 lb (36 kg), the NPRM proposed to
use the instrumented HIII–10C 78 lb
dummy (35 kg) to test all child restraints
recommended for children over 50 lb,
and to discontinue the use of the
weighted HIII 6-year-old dummy
entirely in FMVSS No. 213.
Britax commented that it agreed with
our proposal to use the HIII–10C
dummy when testing CRS with a weight
capacity greater than 65 lb, but
disagreed with using the dummy for
testing CRS with a weight capacity
between 50 and 65 lb. The commenter
stated that ‘‘Restraints, and potentially
booster seats, with a maximum capacity
between 50 and 65 pounds are not
structurally and/nor dimensionally
designed for testing with an ATD
[anthropomorphic test device], or use by
a child, having the weight or size of the
HIII–10C dummy.’’ Britax therefore
suggested that FMVSS No. 213 remain
as it is currently for CRS with weight
capacity between 50 and 65 lb, using the
HIII–6C dummy to measure injury
criteria and the weighted HIII–6C
dummy to assess structural integrity.
We have determined that this
comment has merit. We tentatively
agree that it might not be advisable to
require all child restraints rated above
50 lb to be tested with the 78 lb HIII–
10C dummy, since some of these seats
are not designed for or intended to
accommodate a 10-year-old child. Some
of these child restraints do not currently
fit a 10-year-old dummy, or, if made to
fit, might not be able to meet the
performance requirements of the
standard when tested with the HIII–10C.
Britax stated that some child restraints
rated above 50 lb now serve a safety
need by providing a 5-point harness
restraint system for children up to 65 lb.
The commenter was concerned that
these child restraints would be pulled
off the market because they might not be
able to meet FMVSS No. 213’s
requirements when tested with the HIII–
10C dummy, a result that would be
unwarranted and undesirable since the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
restraints are not intended for children
weighing more than 65 lb.
Because Britax’s arguments appear
reasonable, we are proposing that, for
child restraints rated for children
weighing from 50 to 65 lb, these
restraints would continue to be tested
with the HIII–6C instrumented dummy
for performance, and with the weighted
HIII–6C uninstrumented dummy for
structural integrity. Accordingly, under
this proposal, the uninstrumented HIII–
6C dummy would be retained in FMVSS
No. 213. Under the proposal, the
instrumented HIII–10C dummy would
only be used to test child restraints
rated for children weighing 30 kg to 36
kg or more (65 to 80 lb or more).
c. Head Support Surface
FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.1.1) currently
requires some CRSs to have a seat back
to provide restraint against rearward
movement of the child’s head (rearward
in relation to the child). The
determination of whether a seat back is
required is based on the dummy used in
the compliance testing of the restraint.
A child restraint need not have a seat
back if a specified point on the
dummy’s head (approximately located
at the top of the dummy’s ears) is below
the top of the standard seat assembly on
which the restraint is installed for
compliance testing (S5.2.1.2). Because
the Hybrid II and Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummies are not used in the
assessment, booster seats are excluded
from the requirement to have a seat
back. The agency excluded boosters
from the seat back requirement because
it was concerned that the additional
costs associated with redesigning
booster seats to add a seat back were not
justified from a safety standpoint. The
agency did not know of real world crash
data that indicated a problem with head
or neck injuries in rear impact crashes.
(60 FR 35126, 35135; July 6, 1995.)
This SNPRM proposes to keep this
exclusion unchanged by amending
S5.2.1.2, such that S5.2.1.2 would
specify that the HIII–10C, in addition to
the 6-year-old test dummies, would not
be used to determine the applicability of
the head support surface requirements
of S5.2.1.1. We are not aware of real
world crash data indicating a problem
with head or neck injuries in rear
impact crashes, i.e., a need for a head
support surface requirement. NHTSA is
interested in crash data indicating a
need for a requirement for a seat back
on booster seats for older children.
Comments are also requested on any
additional costs that might result from
redesigning booster seats to provide a
seat back.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
A related issue concerns how the
agency would test backless booster seats
if the HIII–10C’s head were above the
seat back of the standard seat assembly
used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance
test. Evenflo stated that it instructs its
consumers to ensure that the child’s
head is supported by the vehicle seat
back or head restraint. Evenflo noted
that when a backless booster is placed
on the FMVSS No. 213 test bench, the
HIII–10C ‘‘is too tall to satisfy this
criterion.’’ NHTSA intends to test the
booster to FMVSS No. 213’s dynamic
test requirements even if the HIII–10C’s
head is above the seat back of the
standard seat assembly. Such a test
would assess the performance of the
CRS with an older child if the CRS did
not have a head support, or if the CRS
were used in a vehicle that did not have
a head restraint or other supporting
structure for the child. On the other
hand, Evenflo also observed that in a
test of a backless booster seat with the
HIII–10C, upon rebound the dummy’s
head struck the cross bar behind the test
bench seat back that supports the tether
anchorage, resulting in a HIC36 value
above 1000. Evenflo believed that the
outcome was ‘‘purely an artifact of the
test environment and does not reflect
real-world vehicle experience in this
country and in Europe that clearly
demonstrates the efficacy of backless
boosters.’’ We are interested in other
commenters’ experiences testing with
the HIII–10C, especially during the
rebound stage of the FMVSS No. 213
sled test.
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
d. Housekeeping Measures
In an effort to delete outdated text
from FMVSS No. 213, this document
will remove and reserve S7.1.1 of the
standard and a part of S7.1.3. S7.1.1 and
S7.1.3 were adopted when the CRABI
and Hybrid III 3-year-old and 6-year-old
test dummies were incorporated into
FMVSS No. 213’s test procedures. The
paragraphs relate to the effective date
(August 1, 2005) for testing with the
new dummies. Since the August 1, 2005
date has passed, the text is no longer
necessary in FMVSS No. 213.
Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy
In this Part 2 of the SNPRM, we are
proposing to add a seating procedure for
positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy (HIII–6C) in a child restraint for
FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing.
Concerns about the variability in HIC
measurements obtained by that test
dummy have led NHTSA to postpone
12 June
24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket 15351.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
mandatory use of the dummy in
compliance tests. The seating procedure
addresses the variability issues and
facilitates the full use of the dummy as
a compliance instrument.
I. Background
When NHTSA incorporated the
Hybrid III (HIII) 6-year-old dummy
(codified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N)
into FMVSS No. 213 by way of a 2003
final rule,12 the agency expected to use
the test dummy in compliance tests of
child restraints manufactured on or after
August 1, 2005. It was brought to the
agency’s attention, however, that
manufacturers needed more time than
provided in the final rule to optimize
their product designs to the
requirements of the standard. Dorel
informed the agency 13 that Dorel belt
positioning booster seats evaluated with
the new dummy would fail to meet
FMVSS No. 213, showing HIC
measurements approximately double
that when the same booster seats were
tested with the Hybrid II (HII) 6-year-old
dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart I).
Dorel believed that the HIII dummy
‘‘exhibits severe, non-biofidelic neck
elongation and head rotation* * *This
results in the chin/face of the dummy
striking the chest, causing artificially
high HIC measurements.’’ [Footnote not
included.] Dorel asked NHTSA to take
immediate action to permit continued
use of the HII 6-year-old to test CRSs
manufactured on and after August 1,
2005.
NHTSA issued an interim final rule
that delayed the August 1, 2005 date to
August 1, 2008. (August 3, 2005; 70 FR
44520, Docket 22010.) The agency
sought to provide manufacturers
additional time to gain experience using
the test dummy and to optimize their
product designs. The rule allowed use
of the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy at the
manufacturers’ option, for child
restraints manufactured until August 1,
2008.
II. Proposed Amendments Relating to
the HIII–6C Dummy
This SNPRM follows up on the
interim final rule by proposing dummy
positioning procedures for the HIII–6C
dummy that would be used when
testing booster seats. The proposed
seating procedure for the HIII–10C
dummy outlined earlier in this notice is
also proposed for the HIII–6C dummy,
with the exception of the computational
values used to determine the H-point
and torso angle. These values are
different for the HIII–6C dummy due to
differences in dummy size.
A test program, discussed below, for
the 6-year-old dummy was conducted in
July 2007, using the new seating
procedure. The agency believes that the
introduction of this repeatable
positioning procedure will address the
HIII 6-year-old issues raised by Dorel.
We have tentatively concluded that the
procedure eliminates the variability of
the test environment that is caused by
different seating positions, and that
implementation of the seating procedure
will lead to more consistent results in
the transition from the Hybrid II
dummies to the Hybrid III dummies.
In order to allow sufficient time for
manufacturers to incorporate this
seating procedure into their compliance
testing with the HIII 6-year-old dummy,
NHTSA is proposing to postpone the
2008 effective date until 2010.
Comments are requested on this
postponement.
As with the HIII–10C, the proposed
positioning procedure for the HIII–6C
dummy would apply when the dummy
is used to test booster seats and not
when the dummy is used to test nonbooster seats. The agency’s reasons for
concluding that the procedure is not
needed in tests of the HIII–6C in nonbooster seats are the same as those
explained above for the HIII–10C, i.e.,
non-booster seats have an internal
harness that positions the dummy and,
together with the adjustment procedures
already in FMVSS No. 213, controlled
and careful positioning of the dummy is
already achieved. Comments are
requested on this issue.
III. Testing
In July 2007, a series of sled tests were
conducted to determine if the proposed
seating procedure developed for the
HIII–10C dummy could be applied to
the HIII–6C when tested in a BPB. Two
models of BPBs were selected, based on
the results observed with the HIII–10C,
to test with the HIII–6C: The Britax
Parkway and the Safety 1st Apex 65.
Each BPB was tested at the optimum
torso angle of 14° and in the more
reclined posture of 22°. Table 4 contains
the test matrix for the HIII–6C and Table
5 contains a summary of the test results.
As with the HIII–10C dummy, the
variability in dummy responses was
minimal among repeated tests for the
HIII 6-year-old dummy. The same trend
observed for the HIII–10C was observed
with the HIII–6C dummy: a more
reclined initial posture resulted in
13 https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/
340975_web.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3909
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3910
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
higher HIC36 values compared to the
more upright posture.
TABLE 4.—TEST MATRIX FOR VALIDATION OF PROPOSED SEATING PROCEDURE USING HIII–6C DUMMY (JULY 2007)
[Numbers in cells indicate sled run numbers]
Torso angle = 14 deg
Driver
SN 008
Britax Parkway .................................................................................................................
Safety 1st Apex 65 ..........................................................................................................
Torso angle = 22 deg
Passenger
SN108
Driver
SN 088
Passenger
SN 108
1, 2, 3
....................
....................
1, 2, 3
4, 5, 6
....................
....................
4, 5, 6
TABLE 5.—RESULTS FOR VALIDATION OF PROPOSED SEATING PROCEDURE USING HIII–6C DUMMY (JULY 2007)
HIC 36 ms
Torso angle
(deg)
Restraint
Britax Parkway .........................................................................................
Safety 1st Apex 65 ..................................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Submission of Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit
Comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the
docket, please include the docket
identification number of this document
in your comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21)
NHTSA established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your
comments. There is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to the docket at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. You may also submit
your comments to the docket
electronically.
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments. OMB’s guidelines may be
accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
3 ms. Chest
Acc. (g)
Head excursion (mm)
Knee excursion (mm)
1000
60
813
915
14.2
13.9
14.5
22.3
22.3
21.9
15.1
13.9
14.7
21.9
22.0
21.9
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at
the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you
should include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in
NHTSA’s confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR Part
512).
Will the agency consider late
comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent
possible, the agency will also consider
comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a
comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
523
445
422
691
613
670
478
599
497
671
655
690
57.4
52.9
56.7
47.0
53.8
52.0
47.7
49.2
47.3
46.1
43.3
44.2
538
550
551
523
565
571
517
541
522
562
511
569
652
656
676
674
684
695
649
694
657
726
693
729
(assuming that one is issued), the
agency will consider that comment as
an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by the docket at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. The hours of the
docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also read the
comments on the Internet.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in
the docket as it becomes available.
Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, the agency
recommends that you periodically
check the docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005
NPRM provided a discussion of the
costs associated with the proposed
incorporation of the HIII–10C dummy
into FMVSS No. 213. The agency stated
in the NPRM that the costs are largely
attributable to the expense of an
instrumented HIII–10C dummy. The
2004 price of an uninstrumented 10year-old dummy is about $36,550. The
specified instrumentation costs
approximately $59,297. The NPRM and
this SNPRM do not require
manufacturers to use any test dummy in
certifying their child restraints. Rather,
this rulemaking proposes changes to
how NHTSA would conduct
compliance testing under FMVSS No.
213. The minimal impacts of today’s
proposal do not warrant preparation of
a regulatory evaluation.
We cannot quantify the benefits of
this rulemaking. However, the agency
believes this rulemaking would enhance
the safety of child restraint systems by
setting dummy positioning procedures
for the Hybrid III 6-year-old and HIII–
10C. This proposed rule would increase
the repeatability of the test dummies’
HIC measurements, which increases the
utility of the dummies in FMVSS
compliance tests. The result of this
proposed rule would be to provide
better assurance that each child restraint
safely restrains the children for whom
the restraint is recommended.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions), unless the head of an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. I
certify that this proposed rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The reasons
underlying this certification are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
discussed in the August 31, 2005
NPRM. This SNPRM would not increase
the testing that NHTSA conducts of
child restraints. The SNPRM addresses
dummy positioning procedures and
generally would not have any
significant impact on the testing
performed on restraints recommend for
children weighing up to 80 lb.
Manufacturers currently must certify
their products to the dynamic test of
Standard No. 213. They typically
provide the basis for those certifications
by dynamically testing their products
using child test dummies. The effect of
this SNPRM on most child restraints
would be to specify procedures that
NHTSA would take in positioning the
HIII 6-year-old and HIII–10C dummies.
Testing child restraints using the
procedures is not expected to affect the
pass/fail rate of the restraints
significantly.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed
rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s NPRM
pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have
federalism implications because a final
rule, if issued, would not have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have
preemptive effect in at least two ways.
First, the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
that preempts State law, not today’s
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3911
rulemaking, so consultation would be
inappropriate.
In addition to the express preemption
noted above, the Supreme Court has
also recognized that State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
NHTSA has not outlined such potential
State requirements in today’s
rulemaking, however, in part because
such conflicts can arise in varied
contexts, but it is conceivable that such
a conflict may become clear through
subsequent experience with today’s
proposed standard and test regime.
NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in
the future, if warranted. See id. at 883–
86.
Civil Justice Reform
This NPRM would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid control
number from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule
would not establish any requirements
that are considered to be information
collection requirements as defined by
the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3912
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The
NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The agency searched for, but did not
find, any voluntary consensus standards
applicable to this proposed rulemaking.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, Federal requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually (adjusted for inflation
with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this
amount by the implicit gross domestic
product price deflator for the year 2000
increases it to $109 million.) This
NPRM would not result in a cost of $109
million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 of the UMRA.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
571 as set forth below.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.213 is amended by:
a. Revising the definition of Child
restraint system in S4, the introductory
paragraph of S5.2.1.2, revising
S6.1.1(d)(2), S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), the
introductory paragraph of S6.2.3,
revising S7.1.2(d) and S7.1.2(e), S7.1.3,
S9.1(f), S9.3.2, and the heading and
introductory paragraph of S10.2.2;
b. Removing and reserving S7.1.1;
c. Adding S7.1.2(f), S10.2.3 and
S10.2.4, and
d. Adding Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17a,
17b, 18, 19, 20 and 21, at the end of the
section.
The revised, reserved and added text
and figures read as follows:
§ 571.213
systems.
Standard No. 213; Child restraint
*
*
*
*
*
S4. Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Child restraint system means any
device, except Type I or Type II seat
belts, designed for use in a motor
vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or
position children who weigh 36
kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the
requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a frontfacing child restraint, and the
conformance of any child restraint other
than a car bed to those requirements is
determined using the largest of the test
dummies specified in S7.1 for use in
testing that restraint; provided, that the
6-year-old dummy described in subpart
I or subpart N of part 572 of this title
and the 10-year-old dummy described
in subpart T of part 572 of this title, are
not used to determine the applicability
of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. A frontfacing child restraint system is not
required to comply with S5.2.1.1 if the
target point on either side of the
dummy’s head is below a horizontal
plane tangent to the top of * * *
S6.1.1 Test conditions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) * * *
(2) When using the test dummies
specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subparts
N, P, R, or T, performance tests under
S6.1 are conducted at any ambient
temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and
at any relative humidity from 10 percent
to 70 percent.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.1.2 * * *
(a) * * *
(ii) Belt-positioning seats. A beltpositioning seat is positioned on either
outboard seating position of the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standard seat assembly in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions
provided with the system pursuant to
S5.6.1, except that only the standard
vehicle lap and shoulder belt is used to
fasten the belt-positioning seat. No
tether strap or any other supplemental
device is used to attach the beltpositioning seat to the standard seat
assembly. Place the booster seat on the
standard seat assembly such that it is
centered between the lap belt anchor
positions. Position the base of the
booster rearward as far as possible
against the seat back of the standard seat
assembly by pushing the booster seat
rearward until the intersection of the
booster’s back and bottom contacts the
intersection of the standard bench seat’s
back and base cushion.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the
dummy restrained in the child restraint
system and apply the following force: 50
N for a system tested with a newborn
dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K); 90
N for a system tested with a 12-monthold dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart
R); 200 N for a system tested with a 3year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572,
subpart P); 270 N for a system tested
with a 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part
572, subpart N or I); 350 N for a system
tested with a weighted 6-year-old
dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S); or
437 N for a system tested with a 10-yearold-dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart
T). The force is applied in the manner
illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
S7.1.1 [Reserved]
S7.1.2 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A child restraint that is
recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by
children in a specified mass range that
includes any children having a mass
greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater
than 22.7 kg (50 lb) or by children in a
specified height range that includes any
children whose height is greater than
1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm
is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, subpart
N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy).
(e) A child restraint that is
recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by
children in a specified mass range that
includes any children having a mass
greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not
greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children
in a specified height range that includes
any children whose height is greater
than 1100 mm but not greater than 1250
mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dummy) and with a part 572, subpart S
dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted
dummy).
(f) A child restraint that is
manufactured on or after [compliance
date of final rule] and that is
recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by
children in a specified mass range that
includes any children having a mass
greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children
in a specified height range that includes
any children whose height is greater
than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR
part 572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III
10-year-old dummy).
S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative
dummies. At the manufacturer’s option
(with said option irrevocably selected
prior to, or at the time of, certification
of the restraint), with regard to testing
a child restraint manufactured before
August 1, 2010, when this section
specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N (Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy) test dummy, the test dummy
specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart I
(Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be
used in place of the subpart N test
dummy.
*
*
*
*
*
S9.1 Type of clothing.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49
CFR part 572, subpart N), Hybrid III 6year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR part
572, subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-yearold dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart
T). When used in testing under this
standard, the dummies specified in 49
CFR part 572, subparts N, S, and T, are
clothed in a light-weight cotton stretch
short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee
pants, and size 121⁄2 M sneakers with
rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and
cotton or nylon and a total mass of 0.453
kg.
*
*
*
*
*
S9.3.2 When using the test dummies
conforming to part 572 subparts N, P, R,
S, or T, prepare the dummies as
specified in this paragraph. Before being
used in testing under this standard,
dummies must be conditioned at any
ambient temperature from 20.6 °C to
22.2 °C and at any relative humidity
from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at
least 4 hours.
*
*
*
*
*
S10.2.2 Three-year-old dummy (49
CFR part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572,
subpart I), Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
(49 CFR part 572, subpart N), Hybrid III
6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR
part 572, subpart S), and Hybrid III 10year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572,
subpart T) positioned in child restraints
other than belt-positioning seats).
Position the 3-year-old dummy and
Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy according
to the instructions for child positioning
that the restraint manufacturer provided
with the system in accordance with
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to
the provisions in S10.2.2. When using
the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, the
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy
and the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy
to test child restraints other than belt-
X HP = X CG +
A ( X KP − X CG )
ZHP = ZCG +
A ( ZKP − ZCG )
B
B
+
positioning seats, position the dummy
according to the instructions for child
positioning that the restraint
manufacturer provided with the system
in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2,
while conforming to the provisions in
S10.2.2.
*
*
*
*
*
S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
(49 CFR part 572, subpart N) in beltpositioning seat. When using the Hybrid
III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572,
subpart N) to test belt-positioning seats,
position the dummy in the child
restraint as follows:
(a) Place the dummy in the booster
seat so that the midsagittal line of the
dummy is coincident with the
centerline of the booster.
(b) Measure the X and Z locations of
the left and right shoulder pivots.
Position the dummy so that the
difference between the X and Z values
for these two points is less than or equal
to 1 cm (see Figure 13).
(c) As illustrated in Figure 14 of this
section, calculate the H-point location of
the dummy relative to the standard seat
assembly Z point (see Figure 1B of this
standard) by:
(1) Measuring the X and Z coordinates
of the knee pivot (XKP and ZKP) and
head center of gravity (XCG and ZCG);
(2) Mathematically locating the
intersection point of two circles using
the knee pivot and head center of
gravity as the centers and the known
dummy anthropometric lengths as radii.
The equations for calculating the Hpoint are as follows:
4732 − A 2 ( ZKP − ZCG )
B
473 − A
2
−
3913
2
( X KP − X CG )
B
Where:
2
(3) Use the H-point location and head
center of gravity location to determine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
( X KP − X CG )
2B
2
+ ( ZKP − ZCG )
2
the torso angle relative to vertical. This
angle is calculated using
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
EP23JA08.001</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
B=
− 2382 + B2 )
23JAP1
EP23JA08.000</GPH>
( 473
A=
3914
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
X − X CG
Torso Angle = arctan HP
ZCG − ZHP
(4) Adjust the dummy until the torso
angle is 14±0.5 degrees from vertical.
(5) Secure the dummy and booster
with belt restraint, following booster
manufacturer’s instructions for routing
the shoulder and lap belts. Only the
standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt
is used to fasten the belt-positioning
seat. No tether strap or any other
supplemental device is used to attach
the belt-positioning seat to the standard
seat assembly. Apply the belt tensions
specified in S6.1.2(d) of this standard.
(6) Locate the shoulder and lap belts
as follows while conforming to the
booster manufacturer’s belt-routing
instructions. If it is not possible to do
both, follow the manufacturer’s
instructions:
(i) Place the outboard edge of the
shoulder belt inside of the outer edge of
the chest jacket (see Figure 15) or as
close to the outer edge of the chest
jacket as possible.
(ii) The straight line distance from the
bottom of the dummy’s chin to the
center of the shoulder belt/middle of the
sternum along the dummy’s midsagittal
line is 15.5±0.5 cm (see Figure 16).
(iii) The shoulder belt angle relative to
horizontal is 50°±10°. If it is not feasible
to achieve the specified shoulder belt
angle, position the shoulder belt as near
as possible to the 50° angle.
180
π
(iv) Place the lap belt such that the
top of the belt is 2.54 cm or more below
the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at
the dummy’s midsagittal line
(illustrated Figure 17). If it is not
feasible to locate the lap belt at least
2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due
to the booster seat’s routing path,
position belt as low as possible on
pelvis.
(7) Place upper arms as close as
possible to, and in alignment with, the
sides of the upper torso. If possible,
bend arms at the elbows such that the
hands are resting on the booster seat
cushion; otherwise bend lower arm
perpendicular to upper arm and have
hands pointed forward.
(8) Level dummy’s head ± 1° off of
horizontal.
S10.2.4 Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy
(49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T) in beltpositioning seat. When using the Hybrid
III 10-year-old child dummy (49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart T) to test beltpositioning seats, position the dummy
in the child restraint as follows:
(a) Set the dummy’s neck angle at the
SP–16 setting (Figure 17a). See also
Figure 20 of the [Draft] Procedures for
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection
(PADI) of the Hybrid III 10-year-old
Child Test Dummy (HIII–10C), [April
2005] for more detail.
X HP = X CG +
ZHP = ZCG +
A ( X KP − X CG )
B
A ( ZKP − ZCG )
B
+
527 2 − A 2 ( ZKP − ZCG )
B
527 − A
2
−
(b) Set the dummy’s lumbar angle at
the SP–12 setting (‘‘SP’’ means standard
posture), see Figure 17b. This is done by
aligning the notch on the lumbar
adjustment bracket with the SP–12
notch on the lumbar attachment. See
also Figure 45 of PADI for more detail.
(c) Place the dummy in the booster
seat so that the midsagittal line of the
dummy is coincident with the
centerline of the booster.
(d) Measure the X and Z locations of
the left and right shoulder pivots.
Position the dummy so that the
difference between the X and Z values
for these two points is less than or equal
to 1 cm (see Figure 18).
(e) As illustrated in Figure 19 of this
section, calculate the H-point location of
the dummy relative to the standard seat
assembly Z point (see Figure 1B of this
standard) by:
(1) Measuring the X and Z coordinates
of the knee pivot (XKP and ZKP) and
head center of gravity (XCG and ZCG);
(2) Mathematically locating the
intersection point of two circles using
the knee pivot and head center of
gravity as the centers and the known
dummy anthropometric lengths as radii.
The equations for calculating the Hpoint are as follows:
2
( X KP − X CG )
B
Where:
EP23JA08.005</GPH>
( X KP − X CG )
2B
2
+ ( ZKP − ZCG )
2
EP23JA08.004</GPH>
(3) Use the H-point location and head
center of gravity location to determine
− 2882 + B2 )
the torso angle relative to vertical. This
angle is calculated using
EP23JA08.003</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
B=
2
X − X CG 180
Torso Angle = arctan HP
ZCG − ZHP π
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.002</GPH>
( 572
A=
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
(i) Place the outboard edge of the
shoulder belt inside of the outer edge of
the chest jacket (see Figure 20) or as
close to the outer edge of the chest
jacket as possible.
(ii) The straight line distance from the
bottom of the dummy’s chin to the
center of the shoulder belt/middle of the
sternum along the dummy’s midsagittal
line is 16±0.5 cm (see Figure 21).
(iii) The shoulder belt angle relative to
horizontal is 50°±10°. If it is not feasible
to achieve the specified shoulder belt
angle, position the shoulder belt as near
as possible to the 50° angle.
(iv) Place the lap belt such that the
top of the belt is 2.54 cm or more below
the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at
the dummy’s midsagittal line
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
(illustrated Figure 21). If it is not
feasible to locate the lap belt at least
2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due
to the booster seat’s routing path,
position belt as low as possible on
pelvis.
(7) Place upper arms as close as
possible to, and in alignment with, the
sides of the upper torso. If possible,
bend arms at the elbows such that the
hands are resting on the booster seat
cushion; otherwise bend lower arm
perpendicular to upper arm and have
hands pointed forward.
(8) Level dummy’s head ±1° off of
horizontal.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.008</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
(4) Adjust the dummy until the torso
angle is 14±0.5 degrees from vertical.
(5) Secure the dummy and booster
with belt restraint, following booster
manufacturer’s instructions for routing
the shoulder and lap belts. Only the
standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt
is used to fasten the belt-positioning
seat. No tether strap or any other
supplemental device is used to attach
the belt-positioning seat to the standard
seat assembly. Apply the belt tensions
specified in S6.1.2(d) of this standard.
(6) Locate the shoulder and lap belts
as follows while conforming to the
booster manufacturer’s belt routing
instructions. If it is not possible to do
both, follow the booster manufacturer’s
instructions:
3915
EP23JA08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.009</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
3916
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
3917
EP23JA08.011</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.012</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
3918
EP23JA08.014</GPH>
3919
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.013</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
EP23JA08.016</GPH>
Issued: January 11, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8–856 Filed 1–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
EP23JA08.015</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
3920
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3901-3920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-856]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 2007-0048]
RIN 2127-AJ44, RIN 2127-AJ49
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems;
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-
Year-Old Child Dummies)
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) of August 31, 2005 that proposed to: (a) Expand the
applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
Child restraint systems, to restraints recommended for children up to
80 pounds, and (b) require booster seats and other restraints to meet
performance criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative
of a 10-year-old child. In Part 1 of this SNPRM, NHTSA is proposing a
test procedure for positioning the 10-year-old child dummy in a child
restraint, to reduce variation due to chin-to-lower neck contact that
was exhibited by the dummy in sled tests conducted subsequent to the
NPRM. Comments are also requested in Part 1 on some other changes or
clarifications to the NPRM, proposed in response to the public
comments. In Part 2 of this SNPRM, we likewise propose to add a seating
procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a child
restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about the
variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have led
NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in agency compliance
tests. The seating procedure will address this variability issue and
facilitate the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than March 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Dr.
Roger Saul, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-
493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of
Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM
III. Agency Follow Up
IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the
HIII-10C Dummy
a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy
c. Head Support Surface
d. Housekeeping Measures
Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy
III. Testing
Submission of Comments
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
I. Background
On August 31, 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM proposing: (a) To expand
the applicability of FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems, to
restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds (lb); and (b) to
require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria
when tested with a Hybrid III crash test dummy representative of a 10-
year-old child (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245).
[[Page 3902]]
The rulemaking proposal was part of an on-going agency initiative to
enhance the safety of children in motor vehicle crashes. It also
furthered Section 4(b) of Public Law 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772 (``Anton's
Law''), which required the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding for
the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-
year-old child.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 4 of Anton's Law, signed on December 4, 2002,
states:
Section 4. Development of Anthropomorphic Test Device Simulating
a 10-Year-Old Child.
(a) Development and Evaluation. Not later than 24 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop
and evaluate an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-
year-old child for use in testing child restraints used in passenger
motor vehicles.
(b) Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year following the
development and evaluation carried out under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of
an anthropomorphic test device as developed under subsection (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency completed its evaluation of the suitability of the
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy in September 2004. Following the
evaluation, NHTSA initiated rulemaking to adopt specifications and
performance requirements for the test dummy into 49 CFR part 572
(notice of proposed rulemaking published July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40281;
Docket No. NHTSA 2004-2005-21247), in addition to publishing the August
31, 2005 NPRM to incorporate the dummy into FMVSS No. 213.
Booster seats provide a seating platform which boosts the child to
a position that enables the vehicle lap and shoulder belts to fit
better. Without booster seats, children who are too small to be
adequately restrained with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system
are at higher risk of injury due to the belts' improper placement. The
agency recommends that children who have outgrown their internal
harnessed child restraint systems, but who cannot adequately fit a
vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system, be properly restrained using
booster seats until they are at least 4 feet 9 inches tall.
The August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed the view expressed by many in
the child passenger safety community that efforts to increase booster
seat use should go hand-in-hand with expanding the applicability of
FMVSS No. 213 to all booster seats. In that way, this view maintains,
the seating system that we recommend for older children will be closely
assessed in the standard's rigorous dynamic test for adequate
performance in a crash. FMVSS No. 213 currently applies to child
restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat, or position
children who weigh 30 kg (65 lb) or less.\2\ Booster seats recommended
for children weighing up to 65 lb are now subject to FMVSS No. 213
testing, but they are currently tested \3\ with a 52-lb 6-year-old
instrumented child dummy for injury performance response criteria, and
with a 62-lb weighted 6-year-old uninstrumented child dummy for
structural integrity. The NPRM proposed to upgrade the test parameters
by using the 78-lb (35 kg) instrumented Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to
test boosters recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb.\4\ (The
10-year-old dummy is referred to as the ``HIII-10C dummy.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FMVSS No. 213, S4, definition of ``child restraint system.''
\3\ For an overview of the current and proposed weight ranges,
see Table 1 of the NPRM, 70 FR at 51723.
\4\ The NPRM also requested comments on whether FMVSS No. 213's
4.4 kg mass limit (S5.4.3.2) for belt-positioning boosters should be
eliminated, and replaced by a chest deflection requirement (70 FR at
51724). In addition, the NPRM document announced NHTSA's decision
not to propose at this time performance criteria for seat belt fit
for booster seats or other belt guidance devices (70 FR at 51726).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM
The agency received 11 comments on the August 31, 2005 NPRM.
Comments were received from Britax Child Safety, Inc. (Britax), Dorel
Juvenile Group (Dorel), Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo), Graco
Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia (CHOP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American Automobile
Association (AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), and Public
Citizen.
All commenters supported extending the applicability of FMVSS No.
213 to child restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb, and
supported having a 10-year-old dummy to test higher-weight rated child
restraints. Dorel, however, expressed concerns about the biofidelity of
the HIII-10C dummy, particularly with regard to a metal ``spine box''
in the dummy's thorax region. Dorel stated that the dummy exhibited
``chin to chest contacts resulting in higher HIC scores in backed
boosters as compared to backless.'' \5\ Similarly, Graco stated that it
conducted a limited series of sled tests (22) using the HIII-10C dummy
and observed a spike in the head X and Z accelerations beginning
between 45 and 50 milliseconds, typically of a duration of less than 10
milliseconds. Graco stated that it did not have an explanation for the
phenomenon, i.e., ``[whether] the spike was caused by a chin strike,
the biofidelity of the dummy's neck or some other cause,'' but
suggested that additional testing should be performed to ensure that
the HIII-10C dummy is appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 213 testing.
(See also comments to the July 13, 2005 NPRM proposing to adopt
specifications for the HIII-10C into 49 CFR part 572, Docket 2004-
21247.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dorel also had concerns about the durability of the HIII-
10C, the characteristics of the abdominal inserts, and the
availability of the dummy for evaluation. Public Citizen suggested
that the HIII-10C dummy ``must be upweighted to more closely match
the mean weight of children today.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Agency Follow-Up
In response to these comments, NHTSA conducted additional sled
tests to assess booster seat performance using the HIII-10C dummy. As a
result of the tests, the agency determined that dummy set-up (posture)
prior to the test significantly affected the consistency of HIC
measurements of repeat tests with the HIII-10C dummy. When the dummy
was somewhat reclined in the child restraint at the outset of the test,
reduced head forward translation and increased head rotation caused
severe dummy chin contact to a rigid portion of the dummy, which
resulted in increased HIC readings. After analyzing the test results,
NHTSA developed a seating procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy
for the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test to address the chin-to-rigid body
impacts. The agency has issued this SNPRM to seek public comment on
incorporating this procedure into the standard. This issue is discussed
in more detail in the next section.
Commenters made other suggestions about or asked for clarification
of certain aspects of the August 31, 2005 NPRM. Two of these, discussed
in the next section, are topics on which we seek comment in this SNPRM.
These relate to the proposed parameters that would specify which test
dummy would be used by NHTSA to test child restraints of recommended
weight ranges (this issue was raised by Britax), and to the issue of
head support requirements for CRSs and how the agency would test
booster seats and other child restraints if the HIII-10C's head were
above the seat back of the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No.
213 compliance test (this issue was raised by Evenflo).
Commenters also remarked on various other aspects of the NPRM.
Comments were submitted on the proposed injury
[[Page 3903]]
criteria \6\ (Advocates believed that the agency should conduct
research into whether the criteria should be scaled; IIHS and CHOP
asked whether the proposed head excursion limits are adequate; and
Graco supported the NPRM's approach of having the injury assessment
reference values (IARV) and performance measurements be generally the
same regardless of child restraint tested). Comments were also
submitted on the NPRM's discussion of injury criteria under
development, with NTSB, AAP, CHOP and IIHS supporting the development
of an abdominal criterion, and the latter opposed to the abdominal
injury ratio discussed in the NPRM. Regarding lead time, Graco noted
the spikes observed in the dummy's HIC measurements and suggested that
three years of lead time should be provided to allow manufacturers time
to gain experience with the HIII-10C dummy, and to make any necessary
product design changes. A number of comments were received on the
agency's decision, announced in the NPRM, not to propose at this time
performance criteria for seat belt fit for booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NPRM proposed performance criteria for the HIII-10-year-
old dummy similar to the current FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the
agency was not aware of any injuries unique to children in booster
seats that would necessitate separate and differing injury criteria
limits. Thus, we tentatively concluded that the existing injury
criteria would likely ensure the continued effectiveness of child
restraints rated to the higher weight limit of 80 lb. The specific
injury criteria measurement maximums for the HIII-10-year-old dummy
were: HIC36 = 1000; chest acceleration = 60 g's (3
millisecond clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters (mm) for
untethered condition, 720 mm for tethered condition (if applicable);
and knee excursion = 915 mm. In preparation for proposing these
criteria measurement maximums, the agency's Vehicle Research and
Test Center (VRTC) performed testing on booster seats with the HIII-
10C dummy; only one child restraint in the test series failed the
existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is evaluating the comments to the NPRMs on the HIII-10C,
and will respond to all relevant comments in rulemaking documents
following this SNPRM.
It is not necessary for commenters to resubmit views on today's
SNPRM that were expressed in previous comments on the earlier NPRMs.
The agency notes that the regulatory text proposed in this SNPRM
includes text that was proposed in the August 31, 2005 NPRM. In some
instances, comments were received on aspects of the proposed regulatory
text. The agency is including text that was proposed in the earlier
notice simply to illustrate the appearance of the affected sections.
The inclusion does not mean that NHTSA has already decided to adopt the
regulatory text. The agency will respond to all relevant comments in a
final rule or other document following this SNPRM.
IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the
HIII-10C Dummy
a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
Following publication of the NPRM, in March/April 2006 NHTSA
conducted additional sled testing of booster seats at the agency's
Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) using the HIII-10C dummy. The
findings of this testing program indicated that there were HIC
measurement inconsistencies in repeated tests with the same booster
seat model. To determine the reasons behind this finding, VRTC
conducted additional sled tests in July 2006. The following discussion
summarizes the findings of these testing programs. The findings are
discussed at length in a NHTSA technical report, ``Development of HIII
6-Year-Old and 10-Year-Old Seating Procedure for Booster Seat
Testing,'' (hereinafter ``VRTC report''), which has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
March/April 2006 Testing Program
VRTC conducted 58 sled test exposures using 30 booster seats with
the HIII-10C dummy (see Table 1). All booster seats were installed on
the FMVSS No. 213 seat test fixture in accordance with the
manufacturers' instructions. High-back child restraints with adjustable
head restraints were positioned such that they were at the correct
height relative to the dummy's head and also gave optimal shoulder belt
fit (i.e., the belt was not on the dummy's neck or too far outboard on
the shoulder). Child restraints with non-adjustable head restraints
with shoulder belt guides attached were tested according to the
manufacturers' instructions as to belt placement, if provided.
Table 1 summarizes the chest acceleration, head and knee
excursions, and HIC36 measurements observed in the March/
April 2006 tests. The full description of the testing set-up and
details of all injury parameters measurements are provided in the VRTC
report.
Table 1.--Evaluation of HIII-10-Year-Old Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests (Mar/Apr 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36 ms Chest acc. Head Knee
------------- 3 ms excursion excursion
IARV --------------------------------------
1000 60 g 813 mm 915 mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraint:
Graco Treasured Cargo................................... 1094 51 490 667
903 48 562 763
Graco Treasured Cargo................................... 1128 52 527 736
910 51 475 637
Cosco High Rise......................................... 506 45 421 568
395 48 436 590
Cosco High Rise......................................... 541 45 437 614
532 44 449 631
Safety 1st Intera....................................... 824 52 518 716
Safety 1st Intera....................................... NA 46 502 746
Safety 1st Apex 65...................................... 1137 49 540 824
950 49 521 801
Evenflo Generations..................................... 622 56 603 809
1216 56 580 808
Britax Parkway.......................................... 764 58 638 863
649 51 658 834
Graco Treasured CarGo................................... 667 46 539 768
751 50 537 822
Compass 500............................................. 792 65 651 851
1594 58 583 802
[[Page 3904]]
Graco Cherished CarGo................................... 773 55 585 777
1126 51 650 875
Evenflo Big Kid......................................... 836 54 538 770
731 50 517 743
Cosco Summit Deluxe..................................... 481 47 528 775
753 45 557 862
Cosco Commuter DX....................................... 826 52 591 881
1137 52 670 985
Safety 1st Enspira...................................... 586 48 602 874
653 50 625 905
Cosco Alpha Omega....................................... 627 44 601 801
472 42 560 767
Safety 1st Intera....................................... NA 49 492 751
1030 43 551 864
Cosco High Rise (no back)............................... NA 47 470 494
733 45 682 696
Evenflo Chase Premiere.................................. 839 52 639 907
997 53 560 864
Graco Turbo Booster..................................... 450 46 571 753
903 47 525 739
Recaro Young Style...................................... 852 55 678 856
848 57 592 778
Safety 1st Vantage Point................................ 911 49 694 1024
725 45 609 909
Combi Dakota (no back).................................. 414 52 507 711
424 51 505 695
Cosco Protek............................................ 511 47 578 740
855 46 598 794
Recaro Young Sport...................................... 931 50 651 884
808 37 607 802
Combi Kobuk............................................. 989 73 679 895
573 52 653 808
Cosco Commuter.......................................... 737 51 573 826
Cosco Summit............................................ 632 52 598 832
Cosco Alpha Omega....................................... 638 42 654 839
Safety 1st Enspira...................................... 620 41 616 758
Safety 1st Apex 65...................................... NA 53 577 937
965 42 530 822
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the March/April 2006 tests indicated that there were
inconsistencies in several HIC36 measurements in repeated
tests with the HIII-10C dummy placed in the same type/model child
restraint system. For example, the HIC36 measurements for
the belt positioning booster (BPB) Evenflo Generations varied from 622
(Pass IARV) to 1216 (Fail IARV). The HIC36 measurements for
the Compass 500 varied from 792 (Pass IARV) to 1594 (Fail IARV) (see
Figure 1). Generally, there were no inconsistencies observed in the
other FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria measurements of chest acceleration,
and head and knee excursions.
After analyzing the test results, VRTC determined that dummy
posture and belt placement affected the kinematic response of the
dummy, which in turn affected HIC readings. A dummy that is set up to
have a more reclined torso (high torso angle) is more likely to
submarine under the vehicle belt. The motion of the head is much
different in a submarining case than in a situation where the dummy is
well restrained. When the dummy is restrained effectively (shoulder
belt centered on the sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the head moves
forward in unison with the upper torso as the belt tension increases.
Then, as the belt reaches its spooling limit, the head rotates in a
wide arc and late in the event contacts a location either on the
ribcage or into a portion of the bib \7\ having a large clearance to
the spine box. Since the ribcage is compliant, the bib-to-spine box
clearance is high, and the contact occurs very late in the event, the
resulting head acceleration due to chin contact is low. Thus its
contribution to the HIC calculation is minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front of the dummy
that serves as an interface between the ribs and the sternum plate.
It extends over each shoulder and covers the cavity between the top
rib and the lower neck region of the spine box. The chest jacket
covers the bib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, in a submarining case, the head does not translate
forward much at all because the shoulder belt engages the neck instead
of restraining the upper torso. Therefore the upper torso steadily
becomes more horizontal and reclined because the overwhelming majority
of the dummy's mass is below the shoulder belt. The head is pulled
downward by the weight of the dummy through the neck, and the forward
inertia of the head mass causes severe rotation about the shoulder belt
at the bottom of the neck. As a result, the head arc is much tighter
and chin contact occurs sooner in the event, before a significant
amount of kinetic energy is dissipated through the belt. This motion
causes the chin to contact the low-clearance portion of the bib
overlaying the top part of the spine box housing the lower neck load
cell. The bib does not provide much resistance to the head's
[[Page 3905]]
increased rotational energy and the chin essentially ``bottoms out'' on
the spine box, causing a large spike in head acceleration and increased
HIC.
In summary, VRTC found that a more reclined posture of the HIII-10C
dummy leads to an increased likelihood for submarining of the dummy.
This situation leads to much higher rotational velocity in the dummy's
head, putting it in non-representative contact with a more rigid
portion of the dummy structure. It was thus determined that through
kinematics, dummy posture significantly affects HIC.
July 2006 Testing Program
In this test program, an additional matrix of 12 sled tests was
conducted to address the finding that the dummy HIC36
response is sensitive to the seating posture of the dummy in the
booster seat. The purpose of this testing program was to determine if
the HIC36 variability could be decreased by tighter controls
on both the dummy's posture and the placement of the belt to restrain
the dummy to the test seat assembly.
Four factors were evaluated in the VRTC testing program:
Seating position--Left Side vs. Right Side
Torso angle--Upright vs. Reclined
Dummy manufacturer--FTSS vs. Denton
Booster model--Evenflo Generations vs. Compass 500
The results of the testing indicate that the dummy torso angle
(representing posture) had a much larger effect on HIC36
than the other three variables. Dummy posture was the only variable to
have a statistically significant effect on HIC36 outcome
(alpha significance level = 0.007, n = 8) and the p-value was more than
an order of magnitude smaller than the next largest effector (dummy
manufacturer had p = 0.065). Figure 1 shows the average HIC36
with error bars giving the minimum/maximum values for each variable
comparison. These test results indicate that the kinematics associated
with a more horizontal torso (i.e., reclined initial posture) led to
more head rotation and more severe dummy chin contact, which ultimately
resulted in higher HIC36 readings. Belt placement, which is
largely a function of both booster seat design and dummy posture, was
also shown to influence HIC in a similar manner to dummy posture (torso
angle). A more inboard shoulder belt was found to have the same effect
as a more reclined posture, and thus similarly, resulted in higher
HIC36 values. Controlling the posture and belt placement of
the dummy decreased the HIC36 variability in the booster
seats tested by 78%. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ When the torso angle for the HIII-10-year-old dummy was set
to the upright position of approximately 16[deg], the average
coefficient of variation for HIC36 for repeat tests of
the two booster seats used in the July 2006 test series was 12.4%.
HIC36 variability was lessened to an acceptable level
below the pass/fail criterion of 1000, and the average HIC readings
for the two seats used in repeat testing ranged from 874-921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 shows the relationship of HIC36 measurements
vs. torso angle (representing posture) for the two belt-positioning
boosters (BPBs) (Evenflo Generations and Compass 500) that were tested
using the pulse and seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213. The plot indicates
that for these two BPBs, a 20[deg] torso angle is correlated to a
HIC36 value of 1000. Note that the dispersion in the data at
each torso angle in Figure 2 is due to the combined effects of left
side versus right side, dummy manufacturer, dynamic belt motion due to
booster seat design, and small variations in the controlled torso
angle.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[[Page 3906]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.007
Proposed Dummy Positioning Procedure
A detailed description of the seating procedure used by VRTC is
provided in the VRTC report and in the proposed regulatory text. The
general approach is as follows:
1. Set the dummy's neck angle at 16 degrees.
2. Set the dummy's lumbar angle at standard posture.
3. Place the booster seat on the FMVSS No. 213 bench seat.
[[Page 3907]]
4. Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal line
of the dummy is aligned with the centerline of the booster.
5. Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder
pivots. Make sure that the X and Z values for these two points are
within 10 mm of each other to ensure that the dummy is not twisted or
tilted in the seat.
6. Locate the head CG, H-point, and knee pivot point. Calculate the
H-point location of the dummy relative to the FMVSS No. 213 seat Z
point by first measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot and
head center of gravity. Then mathematically locate the intersection
point of two circles using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as
the centers and the known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii (see
VRTC report for more detailed explanation).
7. Set the torso angle (established with the head CG and H-point)
to 14 degrees 0.5 degrees from vertical.
8. Apply the belt restraints following the booster manufacturer's
routing instructions and using standard FMVSS No. 213 belt tensions.
We note that the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) has also developed a seating procedure for use with
the HIII-10C dummy that is similar to the procedure proposed in this
SNPRM.\9\ UMTRI had similar findings to the ones of VRTC concerning HIC
measurements of the dummy. In a June 14, 2006 presentation to the
agency on its preliminary findings of an on-going biomechanics study,
UMTRI stated that both the dummy's initial position and belt placement
affected HIC measurements during sled testing of booster seats with the
HIII-10C dummy. The test data are publicly available on the NHTSA
biomechanics database. The data and videos can also be accessed from
the NHTSA Web site https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/
querytesttable.aspx. VRTC used the average child posture data from the
UMTRI Stapp paper in combination with the HIII-10C dummy's
anthropometry to derive a mean torso angle of 14.5[deg] as the optimal
angle to reduce HIC36 variability for the HIII-10C dummy
while maintaining a biofidelic posture. This angle is consistent with
the upright torso angle of approximately 16[deg] used by the agency in
the series of sled tests conducted by VRTC in July 2006.
A series of tests using the HIII-10C dummy was conducted in March/
April of 2007 to validate the seating procedure. This series was a
subset of the BPBs that were tested in the March/April 2006 series (see
Table 1). Table 2 contains the test matrix and Table 3 summarizes the
test results. All of the tests were conducted at the proposed torso
angle of 14[deg] 0.5[deg]. This 0.5[deg]
tolerance limit was achievable with the various BPB models evaluated.
The Graco Turbo Booster was tested both with and without the highback
to determine the effect of the highback.
The results indicated that controlling the torso angle reduced
dummy response variability for the BPBs that were tested. The IARVs
were not exceeded in any of the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Reed MP, et al. ``Improved Positioning Procedures for 6YO
and 10YO ATDs Based on Child Occupant Postures,'' Stapp Car Crash
Journal, Vol. 50 (November 2006), pp. 337-388.
Table 2.--Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using
HIII-10C Dummy (Mar/Apr 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
BPB model Dummy SN of tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway.................................... D001 3
Safety 1st Apex 65................................ F001 3
Recaro Young Style................................ D001 3
Cosoc Protek...................................... F001 3
Graco Turbo Booster:
Without back.................................... D001 3
With back....................................... F001 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-10C Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests
(Mar/Apr 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36 ms Chest acc. 3 Head excursion Knee
---------------- ms ---------------- excursion
IARV ---------------- ---------------
1000 60 g 813 mm 915 mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraint:
Safety 1st Apex 65.......................... 830 51.1 614 790
683 55.7 610 815
893 53.3 637 810
Britax Parkway.............................. 473 48.4 574 704
507 49.0 617 717
420 47.0 614 732
Graco Turbo Booster:
With highback............................... 433 42.0 611 707
356 43.3 602 709
Graco Turbo Booster:
No back..................................... 622 47.3 569 684
625 49.3 540 698
703 52.1 579 692
Recaro Young Style.......................... 680 50.1 697 770
838 46.4 617 754
763 52.2 706 773
Cosco Protek................................ 496 42.9 622 694
403 43.8 574 603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are requested on the proposed dummy positioning procedure.
It is noted that the proposed dummy positioning procedure may not
necessarily lower HIC values across the board for the HIII-10C dummy
(i.e., for some restraints, positioning the dummy in an upright posture
may not necessarily prevent submarining and high head accelerations
when the seat is tested dynamically). However, when testing the HIII-
10C dummy in a more
[[Page 3908]]
upright posture, the HIC values the dummy produces should be within an
acceptable range of variability in repeated testing.
The proposed positioning procedure would apply when the HIII-10C is
used to test booster seats and not when the dummy is used to test child
restraints other than booster seats (``non-booster seats'') that are
recommended for children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb).\10\ NHTSA
tentatively concludes that the procedure is not needed in tests of the
HIII-10C in non-booster seats because those restraints have an internal
harness to help position the dummy. For those restraints, there is
already a methodology set forth in FMVSS No. 213 and in the agency's
Laboratory Test Procedures for the standard \11\ for positioning test
dummies in the restraint systems. The methodology specifies applying a
certain load to the dummy's pelvic/lower torso area to ensure the dummy
is as far back in the restraint as possible, and tightening the
internal harness to specifications. Those procedures reasonably assure
that the dummy is properly positioned in the child restraint, and
appear suitable for positioning the HIII-10C. In contrast, booster
seats do not have an internal harness to help position the dummy, so
there is more opportunity for variation in the positioning of the HIII-
10C and a greater need to control the torso angle and the positioning
of the lap/shoulder belt. Comments are requested on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ There are only a few non-booster seats recommended for
children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and
Sunshine Kids Radian 80).
\11\ https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/
Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP213-9a.pdf
_____________________________________-
Comments are also requested on whether FMVSS No. 213 should require
boosters or other child restraint systems (CRSs) to be designed such
that the dummy can be positioned in the CRS in accordance with
positioning procedures. Conversely, if the dummy cannot be so
positioned, what flexibility should be established to fluctuate from
the procedures to fit the dummy in the CRS? The agency is also
considering whether FMVSS No. 213 should expressly require that each
child restraint system must be capable of fitting the test dummy that
is specified in S7 of FMVSS No. 213 to evaluate the restraint. (For
example, if the CRS were recommended for use by children weighing more
than 30 kg (65 lb), should the standard specify that the CRS must be
capable of fitting and being tested with the HIII-10C dummy?)
b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy
FMVSS No. 213 requires that booster seats recommended for use by
children weighing between 22.7 kg (50 lb) and 30 kg (65 lb) be tested
with the HIII 6-year-old (HIII-6C) (52 lb) instrumented dummy for
injury assessment performance requirements, and with the weighted HIII
62 lb 6-year-old uninstrumented dummy for assessment of the restraint's
structural integrity. Because a number of booster seats are currently
recommended by their manufacturers for children weighing up to 80 lb
(36 kg), the NPRM proposed to use the instrumented HIII-10C 78 lb dummy
(35 kg) to test all child restraints recommended for children over 50
lb, and to discontinue the use of the weighted HIII 6-year-old dummy
entirely in FMVSS No. 213.
Britax commented that it agreed with our proposal to use the HIII-
10C dummy when testing CRS with a weight capacity greater than 65 lb,
but disagreed with using the dummy for testing CRS with a weight
capacity between 50 and 65 lb. The commenter stated that ``Restraints,
and potentially booster seats, with a maximum capacity between 50 and
65 pounds are not structurally and/nor dimensionally designed for
testing with an ATD [anthropomorphic test device], or use by a child,
having the weight or size of the HIII-10C dummy.'' Britax therefore
suggested that FMVSS No. 213 remain as it is currently for CRS with
weight capacity between 50 and 65 lb, using the HIII-6C dummy to
measure injury criteria and the weighted HIII-6C dummy to assess
structural integrity.
We have determined that this comment has merit. We tentatively
agree that it might not be advisable to require all child restraints
rated above 50 lb to be tested with the 78 lb HIII-10C dummy, since
some of these seats are not designed for or intended to accommodate a
10-year-old child. Some of these child restraints do not currently fit
a 10-year-old dummy, or, if made to fit, might not be able to meet the
performance requirements of the standard when tested with the HIII-10C.
Britax stated that some child restraints rated above 50 lb now serve a
safety need by providing a 5-point harness restraint system for
children up to 65 lb. The commenter was concerned that these child
restraints would be pulled off the market because they might not be
able to meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements when tested with the HIII-10C
dummy, a result that would be unwarranted and undesirable since the
restraints are not intended for children weighing more than 65 lb.
Because Britax's arguments appear reasonable, we are proposing
that, for child restraints rated for children weighing from 50 to 65
lb, these restraints would continue to be tested with the HIII-6C
instrumented dummy for performance, and with the weighted HIII-6C
uninstrumented dummy for structural integrity. Accordingly, under this
proposal, the uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy would be retained in FMVSS
No. 213. Under the proposal, the instrumented HIII-10C dummy would only
be used to test child restraints rated for children weighing 30 kg to
36 kg or more (65 to 80 lb or more).
c. Head Support Surface
FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.1.1) currently requires some CRSs to have a
seat back to provide restraint against rearward movement of the child's
head (rearward in relation to the child). The determination of whether
a seat back is required is based on the dummy used in the compliance
testing of the restraint. A child restraint need not have a seat back
if a specified point on the dummy's head (approximately located at the
top of the dummy's ears) is below the top of the standard seat assembly
on which the restraint is installed for compliance testing (S5.2.1.2).
Because the Hybrid II and Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies are not used in
the assessment, booster seats are excluded from the requirement to have
a seat back. The agency excluded boosters from the seat back
requirement because it was concerned that the additional costs
associated with redesigning booster seats to add a seat back were not
justified from a safety standpoint. The agency did not know of real
world crash data that indicated a problem with head or neck injuries in
rear impact crashes. (60 FR 35126, 35135; July 6, 1995.)
This SNPRM proposes to keep this exclusion unchanged by amending
S5.2.1.2, such that S5.2.1.2 would specify that the HIII-10C, in
addition to the 6-year-old test dummies, would not be used to determine
the applicability of the head support surface requirements of S5.2.1.1.
We are not aware of real world crash data indicating a problem with
head or neck injuries in rear impact crashes, i.e., a need for a head
support surface requirement. NHTSA is interested in crash data
indicating a need for a requirement for a seat back on booster seats
for older children. Comments are also requested on any additional costs
that might result from redesigning booster seats to provide a seat
back.
[[Page 3909]]
A related issue concerns how the agency would test backless booster
seats if the HIII-10C's head were above the seat back of the standard
seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. Evenflo stated
that it instructs its consumers to ensure that the child's head is
supported by the vehicle seat back or head restraint. Evenflo noted
that when a backless booster is placed on the FMVSS No. 213 test bench,
the HIII-10C ``is too tall to satisfy this criterion.'' NHTSA intends
to test the booster to FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements even
if the HIII-10C's head is above the seat back of the standard seat
assembly. Such a test would assess the performance of the CRS with an
older child if the CRS did not have a head support, or if the CRS were
used in a vehicle that did not have a head restraint or other
supporting structure for the child. On the other hand, Evenflo also
observed that in a test of a backless booster seat with the HIII-10C,
upon rebound the dummy's head struck the cross bar behind the test
bench seat back that supports the tether anchorage, resulting in a
HIC36 value above 1000. Evenflo believed that the outcome
was ``purely an artifact of the test environment and does not reflect
real-world vehicle experience in this country and in Europe that
clearly demonstrates the efficacy of backless boosters.'' We are
interested in other commenters' experiences testing with the HIII-10C,
especially during the rebound stage of the FMVSS No. 213 sled test.
d. Housekeeping Measures
In an effort to delete outdated text from FMVSS No. 213, this
document will remove and reserve S7.1.1 of the standard and a part of
S7.1.3. S7.1.1 and S7.1.3 were adopted when the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-
year-old and 6-year-old test dummies were incorporated into FMVSS No.
213's test procedures. The paragraphs relate to the effective date
(August 1, 2005) for testing with the new dummies. Since the August 1,
2005 date has passed, the text is no longer necessary in FMVSS No. 213.
Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
In this Part 2 of the SNPRM, we are proposing to add a seating
procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (HIII-6C) in
a child restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about
the variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have
led NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in compliance tests.
The seating procedure addresses the variability issues and facilitates
the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument.
I. Background
When NHTSA incorporated the Hybrid III (HIII) 6-year-old dummy
(codified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N) into FMVSS No. 213 by way of a
2003 final rule,\12\ the agency expected to use the test dummy in
compliance tests of child restraints manufactured on or after August 1,
2005. It was brought to the agency's attention, however, that
manufacturers needed more time than provided in the final rule to
optimize their product designs to the requirements of the standard.
Dorel informed the agency \13\ that Dorel belt positioning booster
seats evaluated with the new dummy would fail to meet FMVSS No. 213,
showing HIC measurements approximately double that when the same
booster seats were tested with the Hybrid II (HII) 6-year-old dummy (49
CFR part 572, subpart I). Dorel believed that the HIII dummy ``exhibits
severe, non-biofidelic neck elongation and head rotation* * *This
results in the chin/face of the dummy striking the chest, causing
artificially high HIC measurements.'' [Footnote not included.] Dorel
asked NHTSA to take immediate action to permit continued use of the HII
6-year-old to test CRSs manufactured on and after August 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket 15351.
\13\ https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/340975_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA issued an interim final rule that delayed the August 1, 2005
date to August 1, 2008. (August 3, 2005; 70 FR 44520, Docket 22010.)
The agency sought to provide manufacturers additional time to gain
experience using the test dummy and to optimize their product designs.
The rule allowed use of the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy at the
manufacturers' option, for child restraints manufactured until August
1, 2008.
II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy
This SNPRM follows up on the interim final rule by proposing dummy
positioning procedures for the HIII-6C dummy that would be used when
testing booster seats. The proposed seating procedure for the HIII-10C
dummy outlined earlier in this notice is also proposed for the HIII-6C
dummy, with the exception of the computational values used to determine
the H-point and torso angle. These values are different for the HIII-6C
dummy due to differences in dummy size.
A test program, discussed below, for the 6-year-old dummy was
conducted in July 2007, using the new seating procedure. The agency
believes that the introduction of this repeatable positioning procedure
will address the HIII 6-year-old issues raised by Dorel. We have
tentatively concluded that the procedure eliminates the variability of
the test environment that is caused by different seating positions, and
that implementation of the seating procedure will lead to more
consistent results in the transition from the Hybrid II dummies to the
Hybrid III dummies.
In order to allow sufficient time for manufacturers to incorporate
this seating procedure into their compliance testing with the HIII 6-
year-old dummy, NHTSA is proposing to postpone the 2008 effective date
until 2010. Comments are requested on this postponement.
As with the HIII-10C, the proposed positioning procedure for the
HIII-6C dummy would apply when the dummy is used to test booster seats
and not when the dummy is used to test non-booster seats. The agency's
reasons for concluding that the procedure is not needed in tests of the
HIII-6C in non-booster seats are the same as those explained above for
the HIII-10C, i.e., non-booster seats have an internal harness that
positions the dummy and, together with the adjustment procedures
already in FMVSS No. 213, controlled and careful positioning of the
dummy is already achieved. Comments are requested on this issue.
III. Testing
In July 2007, a series of sled tests were conducted to determine if
the proposed seating procedure developed for the HIII-10C dummy could
be applied to the HIII-6C when tested in a BPB. Two models of BPBs were
selected, based on the results observed with the HIII-10C, to test with
the HIII-6C: The Britax Parkway and the Safety 1st Apex 65. Each BPB
was tested at the optimum torso angle of 14[deg] and in the more
reclined posture of 22[deg]. Table 4 contains the test matrix for the
HIII-6C and Table 5 contains a summary of the test results.
As with the HIII-10C dummy, the variability in dummy responses was
minimal among repeated tests for the HIII 6-year-old dummy. The same
trend observed for the HIII-10C was observed with the HIII-6C dummy: a
more reclined initial posture resulted in
[[Page 3910]]
higher HIC36 values compared to the more upright posture.
Table 4.--Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007)
[Numbers in cells indicate sled run numbers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torso angle = 14 deg Torso angle = 22 deg
---------------------------------------------------
Driver SN Passenger Driver SN Passenger
008 SN108 088 SN 108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway.............................................. 1, 2, 3 ........... 4, 5, 6 ...........
Safety 1st Apex 65.......................................... ........... 1, 2, 3 ........... 4, 5, 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36 ms 3 ms. Chest Head Knee
------------- Acc. (g) excursion excursion
Restraint Torso angle ------------- (mm) (mm)
(deg) 1000 -------------------------
60 813 915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway................................. 14.2 523 57.4 538 652
13.9 445 52.9 550 656
14.5 422 56.7 551 676
22.3 691 47.0 523 674
22.3 613 53.8 565 684
21.9 670 52.0 571 695
Safety 1st Apex 65............................. 15.1 478 47.7 517 649
13.9 599 49.2 541 694
14.7 497 47.3 522 657
21.9 671 46.1 562 726
22.0 655 43.3 511 693
21.9 690 44.2 569 729
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
identification number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21)
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments that the
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too
late for the agency to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming
that one is issued), the agency will consider that comment as an
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the
Internet.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
[[Page 3911]]
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005
NPRM provided a discussion of the costs associated with the proposed
incorporation of the HIII-10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213. The agency
stated in the NPRM that the costs are largely attributable to the
expense of an instrumented HIII-10C dummy. The 2004 price of an
uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The specified
instrumentation costs approximately $59,297. The NPRM and this SNPRM do
not require manufacturers to use any test dummy in certifying their
child restraints. Rather, this rulemaking proposes changes to how NHTSA
would conduct compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213. The minimal
impacts of today's proposal do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.
We cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. However, the
agency believes this rulemaking would enhance the safety of child
restraint systems by setting dummy positioning procedures for the
Hybrid III 6-year-old and HIII-10C. This proposed rule would increase
the repeatabilit
